|
On October 03 2018 08:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 07:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 06:58 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2018 22:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background.
On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems.
I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details.
I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight. The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s. When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/ The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening. I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space. I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem. Of course the Democrats are opposed to him regardless of the accusations. They have made that abundantly clear. The Democrats pioneered the politicization of the Court, so why would they stop now? There's nothing abundantly clear about that statement. It makes the situation all around easier if opposing Kavanaugh means you also have morality and righteousness on your side, so it's logical to jump at those sexual conduct accusations or the perjury accusations in an attempt to obtain that. If there's nothing to jump at, would they be jumping? We don't know that. I certainly hope they would, but I can't say I trust them to. What? With the potential exception of a handful of moderates, who else in the Senate is on board with Kavanaugh's brand of jurisprudence? Presumably the same was true for Gorsuch, and they didn't put up much of a fight, wouldn't you agree? A bit of pouting over Garland, and then we moved on. What exactly do you want them to do? They all voted against Gorsuch.
Bend the rules, do whatever they can. You know, political stuff.
Three of them didn't even vote against him.
|
On October 03 2018 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 07:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 06:58 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2018 22:26 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s. When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/ The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening. I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space. I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem. Of course the Democrats are opposed to him regardless of the accusations. They have made that abundantly clear. The Democrats pioneered the politicization of the Court, so why would they stop now? There's nothing abundantly clear about that statement. It makes the situation all around easier if opposing Kavanaugh means you also have morality and righteousness on your side, so it's logical to jump at those sexual conduct accusations or the perjury accusations in an attempt to obtain that. If there's nothing to jump at, would they be jumping? We don't know that. I certainly hope they would, but I can't say I trust them to. What? With the potential exception of a handful of moderates, who else in the Senate is on board with Kavanaugh's brand of jurisprudence? Presumably the same was true for Gorsuch, and they didn't put up much of a fight, wouldn't you agree? A bit of pouting over Garland, and then we moved on. What exactly do you want them to do? They all voted against Gorsuch. Bend the rules, do whatever they can. You know, political stuff. Three of them didn't even vote against him.
Well, Feinstein certainly "bent the rules" with Kavanaugh, and look at what that has accomplished. Are you satisfied with result? I wouldn't be if I were you.
|
On October 03 2018 08:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 07:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 06:58 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/
The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening. I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space. I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem. Of course the Democrats are opposed to him regardless of the accusations. They have made that abundantly clear. The Democrats pioneered the politicization of the Court, so why would they stop now? There's nothing abundantly clear about that statement. It makes the situation all around easier if opposing Kavanaugh means you also have morality and righteousness on your side, so it's logical to jump at those sexual conduct accusations or the perjury accusations in an attempt to obtain that. If there's nothing to jump at, would they be jumping? We don't know that. I certainly hope they would, but I can't say I trust them to. What? With the potential exception of a handful of moderates, who else in the Senate is on board with Kavanaugh's brand of jurisprudence? Presumably the same was true for Gorsuch, and they didn't put up much of a fight, wouldn't you agree? A bit of pouting over Garland, and then we moved on. What exactly do you want them to do? They all voted against Gorsuch. Bend the rules, do whatever they can. You know, political stuff. Three of them didn't even vote against him. Well, Feinstein certainly "bent the rules" with Kavanaugh, and look at what that has accomplished. Are you satisfied with result? I wouldn't be if I were you.
It is better, yes, but that's not nearly enough. First of all there's the backstory that makes me doubt that they would be doing it in any case, as they should, which we've discussed. Plus they're not demanding as much as they should: there's an election in like 30 days, and it's pretty easy to make the argument that an investigation would be beneficial. Time to do some fucking politics and demand an investigation that lasts until the election that you're probably going to win. But they don't even do that, they demand one week of investigation... That's so sad.
|
On October 03 2018 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 06:58 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2018 22:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 16:31 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:51 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
There's two different issues here. The first is whether there is a misrepresentation. The second is whether it is material. What I am saying is that it is very difficult to argue that there has been a misrepresentation when the statement in question is ambiguous and therefore subject to more than one interpretation. If I was examining Kavanaugh, and I thought that this issue was material, I would have asked him what he meant by "connection" or (presuming that I did my homework), I would have asked him whether he had any Yale graduates in his family, and then followed that up with asking for a correction on the record.
[quote]
Kavanaugh's testimony has nothing to do with his merits as a judge. He has impeccable credentials, which is why the Democrats are trying to derail with him with slanderous horseshit. As for his testimony in particular, I didn't see anything particularly disqualifying about his testimony. You have to keep in mind his situation and the circumstances surrounding his testimony. Not only was he in a position in which he had to defend himself against patently baseless accusations, but he was asked multiple, completely objectionable questions that had no bearing on anything. The repeated question about whether he wanted the FBI to get involved was one such question. It was a circus, and he knew it was a circus.
[quote]
Nonsense. What Kavanaugh is dealing with is completely unprecedented. Besides, there were certainly parts of Kavanaugh's testimony I did not like, and I pointed them out during his testimony. Fair enough. But just so I'm clear on this part I didn't see anything particularly disqualifying about his testimony. You have to keep in mind his situation and the circumstances surrounding his testimony. Not only was he in a position in which he had to defend himself against patently baseless accusations, but he was asked multiple, completely objectionable questions that had no bearing on anything. The repeated question about whether he wanted the FBI to get involved was one such question. It was a circus, and he knew it was a circus.
I don't think he displayed the temperament I'd like to see in a SCJ (as idealized) but I can understand your position as well. i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college. you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury. people in general are really bad at comprehension and context It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background. On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems. I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details. I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight. The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s. When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/ The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening. I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space. I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem. Of course the Democrats are opposed to him regardless of the accusations. They have made that abundantly clear. The Democrats pioneered the politicization of the Court, so why would they stop now? There's nothing abundantly clear about that statement. It makes the situation all around easier if opposing Kavanaugh means you also have morality and righteousness on your side, so it's logical to jump at those sexual conduct accusations or the perjury accusations in an attempt to obtain that. If there's nothing to jump at, would they be jumping? We don't know that. I certainly hope they would, but I can't say I trust them to.
Of course they wouldn't. They'd be about as outraged as they were when Hillary was chasing the coveted Kissinger endorsement, or when Trump asked Democrats to dump more money into the military and they couldn't give it to him fast enough.
I think xDaunt buys into the theater a bit too much myself.Republicans and Democrats are more alike than I think either party cares to admit.
|
On October 03 2018 08:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:05 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 07:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 06:58 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space. I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem. Of course the Democrats are opposed to him regardless of the accusations. They have made that abundantly clear. The Democrats pioneered the politicization of the Court, so why would they stop now? There's nothing abundantly clear about that statement. It makes the situation all around easier if opposing Kavanaugh means you also have morality and righteousness on your side, so it's logical to jump at those sexual conduct accusations or the perjury accusations in an attempt to obtain that. If there's nothing to jump at, would they be jumping? We don't know that. I certainly hope they would, but I can't say I trust them to. What? With the potential exception of a handful of moderates, who else in the Senate is on board with Kavanaugh's brand of jurisprudence? Presumably the same was true for Gorsuch, and they didn't put up much of a fight, wouldn't you agree? A bit of pouting over Garland, and then we moved on. What exactly do you want them to do? They all voted against Gorsuch. Bend the rules, do whatever they can. You know, political stuff. Three of them didn't even vote against him. Well, Feinstein certainly "bent the rules" with Kavanaugh, and look at what that has accomplished. Are you satisfied with result? I wouldn't be if I were you. It is better, yes, but that's not nearly enough. First of all there's the backstory that makes me doubt that they would be doing it anyway as they should, which we've discussed. Plus they're not demanding as much as they should: there's an election in like 30 days, and it's pretty easy to make the argument that an investigation would be beneficial. Time to do some fucking politics and demand an investigation that lasts until the election that you're probably going to win. But they don't even do that, they demand one week of investigation... That's so sad.
All I see is you whining that Democrats aren't doing enough without putting forward any kind of reasonable explanation for what they could do. They don't hold power. And you should be very upset with Feinstein, because it is backfiring badly and is going to have massive repercussions in November.
|
On October 03 2018 08:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:08 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 08:05 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 08:02 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 07:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 06:58 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem. Of course the Democrats are opposed to him regardless of the accusations. They have made that abundantly clear. The Democrats pioneered the politicization of the Court, so why would they stop now? There's nothing abundantly clear about that statement. It makes the situation all around easier if opposing Kavanaugh means you also have morality and righteousness on your side, so it's logical to jump at those sexual conduct accusations or the perjury accusations in an attempt to obtain that. If there's nothing to jump at, would they be jumping? We don't know that. I certainly hope they would, but I can't say I trust them to. What? With the potential exception of a handful of moderates, who else in the Senate is on board with Kavanaugh's brand of jurisprudence? Presumably the same was true for Gorsuch, and they didn't put up much of a fight, wouldn't you agree? A bit of pouting over Garland, and then we moved on. What exactly do you want them to do? They all voted against Gorsuch. Bend the rules, do whatever they can. You know, political stuff. Three of them didn't even vote against him. Well, Feinstein certainly "bent the rules" with Kavanaugh, and look at what that has accomplished. Are you satisfied with result? I wouldn't be if I were you. It is better, yes, but that's not nearly enough. First of all there's the backstory that makes me doubt that they would be doing it anyway as they should, which we've discussed. Plus they're not demanding as much as they should: there's an election in like 30 days, and it's pretty easy to make the argument that an investigation would be beneficial. Time to do some fucking politics and demand an investigation that lasts until the election that you're probably going to win. But they don't even do that, they demand one week of investigation... That's so sad. All I see you whining that Democrats aren't doing enough without putting forward any kind of reasonable explanation for what they could do. They don't hold power. And you should be very upset with Feinstein, because it is backfiring badly and is going to have massive repercussions in November.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Is there anything wrong with that? If you were in the opposition and you saw your side just disarm or not fight hard enough, would you be fine with that? I certainly am not.
|
On October 03 2018 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Yeah, that sounds about right. Is there anything wrong with that? If you were in the opposition and you saw your side just disarm or not fight hard enough, would you be fine with that? I certainly am not.
Maybe offer up something practical? Or just be honest like GH and come out and advocate for armed revolution? There aren't many options here. The GOP is in power, so according to the law, they get to call the shots on this stuff. As Obama said, "elections have consequences." It seems like y'all on the left have real problems with losing and living with the results within the bounds of the law.
|
On October 03 2018 08:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Yeah, that sounds about right. Is there anything wrong with that? If you were in the opposition and you saw your side just disarm or not fight hard enough, would you be fine with that? I certainly am not. Maybe offer up something practical? Or just be honest like GH and come out and advocate for armed revolution? There aren't many options here. The GOP is in power, so according to the law, they get to call the shots on this stuff. As Obama said, "elections have consequences." It seems like y'all on the left have real problems with losing and living with the results within the bounds of the law.
How about what I just offered? Demand an investigation that lasts until the election, and then blame the Republicans when they don't accept that. Don't demand a one week investigation that changes absolutely nothing in terms of politics and allows the Republicans to say "We've accepted all the terms the evil Democrats demanded of us, and somehow they're still opposed to our guy, aren't they terrible".
The one week demand shows that they're still attempting to compromise. Republicans don't lose anything by accepting that, it's needlessly conciliatory toward them. That's what's making the Dems look bad right now, they gave up their leverage on just the hope that a one week investigation could unearth enough, which is not likely.
|
On October 03 2018 08:21 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Yeah, that sounds about right. Is there anything wrong with that? If you were in the opposition and you saw your side just disarm or not fight hard enough, would you be fine with that? I certainly am not. Maybe offer up something practical? Or just be honest like GH and come out and advocate for armed revolution? There aren't many options here. The GOP is in power, so according to the law, they get to call the shots on this stuff. As Obama said, "elections have consequences." It seems like y'all on the left have real problems with losing and living with the results within the bounds of the law. How about what I just offered? Demand an investigation that lasts until the election, and then blame the Republicans when they don't accept that. Don't demand a one week investigation that changes absolutely nothing in terms of politics and allows the Republicans to say "We've accepted all the terms the evil Democrats demanded of us, and somehow they're still opposed to our guy, aren't they terrible". The one week demand shows that they're still attempting to compromise. Republicans don't lose anything by accepting that, it's needlessly conciliatory toward them. That's what's making the Dems look bad right now, they gave up their leverage on just the hope that a one week investigation could unearth enough, which is not likely.
xDaunt spent years complaining Republicans didn't fight hard enough and that Trump's brash and often idiotic fighting was what they needed. The last thing he wants is for Democrats to respond in kind. The shallow petty bickering they are using now is exactly the kind of resistance that emboldens Republicans, which is supported by polling data.
xDaunt also has a thing for rules as if rules can't be rigged or just trash.
|
On October 03 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:21 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 08:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Yeah, that sounds about right. Is there anything wrong with that? If you were in the opposition and you saw your side just disarm or not fight hard enough, would you be fine with that? I certainly am not. Maybe offer up something practical? Or just be honest like GH and come out and advocate for armed revolution? There aren't many options here. The GOP is in power, so according to the law, they get to call the shots on this stuff. As Obama said, "elections have consequences." It seems like y'all on the left have real problems with losing and living with the results within the bounds of the law. How about what I just offered? Demand an investigation that lasts until the election, and then blame the Republicans when they don't accept that. Don't demand a one week investigation that changes absolutely nothing in terms of politics and allows the Republicans to say "We've accepted all the terms the evil Democrats demanded of us, and somehow they're still opposed to our guy, aren't they terrible". The one week demand shows that they're still attempting to compromise. Republicans don't lose anything by accepting that, it's needlessly conciliatory toward them. That's what's making the Dems look bad right now, they gave up their leverage on just the hope that a one week investigation could unearth enough, which is not likely. xDaunt spent years complaining Republicans didn't fight hard enough and that Trump's brash and often idiotic fighting was what they needed. The last thing he wants is for Democrats to respond in kind. The shallow petty bickering they are using now is exactly the kind of resistance that emboldens Republicans, which is supported by polling data.
Sounds just about 100% correct
|
I think a lot of conservatives will be upset if the Democrats take back either chamber. Most of their house members have never been in the minority.
And it’s not like the Republicans have presented a united front on anything but those tax cuts. They spend a lot of their time bickering and doing nothing. Both parties are gripped by internal struggles, it’s just that the conservatives main goal is undermine government.
|
On October 03 2018 08:36 Plansix wrote:
I think a lot of conservatives will be upset if the Democrats take back either chamber. Most of their house members have never been in the minority.
And it’s not like the Republicans have presented a united front on anything but those tax cuts. They spend a lot of their time bickering and doing nothing.
Democrats are doing their best to prevent Republicans from facing such a situation, and at this rate they might actually manage to pull it off with their supporters cheering it on.
|
On October 03 2018 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:36 Plansix wrote:
I think a lot of conservatives will be upset if the Democrats take back either chamber. Most of their house members have never been in the minority.
And it’s not like the Republicans have presented a united front on anything but those tax cuts. They spend a lot of their time bickering and doing nothing. Democrats are doing their best to prevent Republicans from facing such a situation, and at this rate they might actually manage to pull it off with their supporters cheering it on.
Your opinion about the upcoming elections is well known. One of us will be right after November and I have zero interest in debating which of us that will be.
|
On October 03 2018 08:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2018 08:36 Plansix wrote:
I think a lot of conservatives will be upset if the Democrats take back either chamber. Most of their house members have never been in the minority.
And it’s not like the Republicans have presented a united front on anything but those tax cuts. They spend a lot of their time bickering and doing nothing. Democrats are doing their best to prevent Republicans from facing such a situation, and at this rate they might actually manage to pull it off with their supporters cheering it on. Your opinion about the upcoming elections is well known. One of us will be right after November and I have zero interest in debating which of us that will be.
Problem is it'll be another Hillary situation where we spend the next 2 years talking about Republicans and how Democrats need the presidency to stop them instead of focusing on what people would be voting for (instead of against Republicans)
Additionally, best case gets us Democrats slowing down Republicans rolling over them, there is not even a glimmer of hope on the horizon for Democrats to actually accomplish anything.
Like how the Hillary bubble prevented folks like you and Kwark from seeing what was coming, as is the case now. Just so we're clear anything less than a blowout is a failure by Democrats, a small majority is a pathetic result given the current conditions.
|
On October 03 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:21 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 08:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Yeah, that sounds about right. Is there anything wrong with that? If you were in the opposition and you saw your side just disarm or not fight hard enough, would you be fine with that? I certainly am not. Maybe offer up something practical? Or just be honest like GH and come out and advocate for armed revolution? There aren't many options here. The GOP is in power, so according to the law, they get to call the shots on this stuff. As Obama said, "elections have consequences." It seems like y'all on the left have real problems with losing and living with the results within the bounds of the law. How about what I just offered? Demand an investigation that lasts until the election, and then blame the Republicans when they don't accept that. Don't demand a one week investigation that changes absolutely nothing in terms of politics and allows the Republicans to say "We've accepted all the terms the evil Democrats demanded of us, and somehow they're still opposed to our guy, aren't they terrible". The one week demand shows that they're still attempting to compromise. Republicans don't lose anything by accepting that, it's needlessly conciliatory toward them. That's what's making the Dems look bad right now, they gave up their leverage on just the hope that a one week investigation could unearth enough, which is not likely. xDaunt spent years complaining Republicans didn't fight hard enough and that Trump's brash and often idiotic fighting was what they needed. The last thing he wants is for Democrats to respond in kind. The shallow petty bickering they are using now is exactly the kind of resistance that emboldens Republicans, which is supported by polling data. xDaunt also has a thing for rules as if rules can't be rigged or just trash.
The republican temerity that I bitched about is very different than what Nebu is complaining about. Before Trump, Republicans simply took it on the chin whenever Democrats peddled in slander as they are with Kavanaugh. W would say that it was beneath the dignity of the office to respond. It was the same with Romney and even McCain. And beyond that, Republicans are still terrible at actually using their power. The lack of major legislation over the past couple years is really sad.
|
On October 03 2018 08:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2018 08:21 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 08:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Yeah, that sounds about right. Is there anything wrong with that? If you were in the opposition and you saw your side just disarm or not fight hard enough, would you be fine with that? I certainly am not. Maybe offer up something practical? Or just be honest like GH and come out and advocate for armed revolution? There aren't many options here. The GOP is in power, so according to the law, they get to call the shots on this stuff. As Obama said, "elections have consequences." It seems like y'all on the left have real problems with losing and living with the results within the bounds of the law. How about what I just offered? Demand an investigation that lasts until the election, and then blame the Republicans when they don't accept that. Don't demand a one week investigation that changes absolutely nothing in terms of politics and allows the Republicans to say "We've accepted all the terms the evil Democrats demanded of us, and somehow they're still opposed to our guy, aren't they terrible". The one week demand shows that they're still attempting to compromise. Republicans don't lose anything by accepting that, it's needlessly conciliatory toward them. That's what's making the Dems look bad right now, they gave up their leverage on just the hope that a one week investigation could unearth enough, which is not likely. xDaunt spent years complaining Republicans didn't fight hard enough and that Trump's brash and often idiotic fighting was what they needed. The last thing he wants is for Democrats to respond in kind. The shallow petty bickering they are using now is exactly the kind of resistance that emboldens Republicans, which is supported by polling data. xDaunt also has a thing for rules as if rules can't be rigged or just trash. The republican temerity that I bitched about is very different than what Nebu is complaining about. Before Trump, Republicans simply took it on the chin whenever Democrats peddled in slander as they are with Kavanaugh. W would say that it was beneath the dignity of the office to respond. It was the same with Romney and even McCain. And beyond that, Republicans are still terrible at actually using their power. The lack of major legislation over the past couple years is really sad.
The current Republican president spent years peddling that the previous president was part of a massive government wide conspiracy to cover up he wasn't actually a US citizen. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of the idea that Republicans don't want slanderous rumors circulating or that they want those that circulate them to be held responsible.
|
On October 03 2018 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 08:59 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2018 08:21 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 08:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Yeah, that sounds about right. Is there anything wrong with that? If you were in the opposition and you saw your side just disarm or not fight hard enough, would you be fine with that? I certainly am not. Maybe offer up something practical? Or just be honest like GH and come out and advocate for armed revolution? There aren't many options here. The GOP is in power, so according to the law, they get to call the shots on this stuff. As Obama said, "elections have consequences." It seems like y'all on the left have real problems with losing and living with the results within the bounds of the law. How about what I just offered? Demand an investigation that lasts until the election, and then blame the Republicans when they don't accept that. Don't demand a one week investigation that changes absolutely nothing in terms of politics and allows the Republicans to say "We've accepted all the terms the evil Democrats demanded of us, and somehow they're still opposed to our guy, aren't they terrible". The one week demand shows that they're still attempting to compromise. Republicans don't lose anything by accepting that, it's needlessly conciliatory toward them. That's what's making the Dems look bad right now, they gave up their leverage on just the hope that a one week investigation could unearth enough, which is not likely. xDaunt spent years complaining Republicans didn't fight hard enough and that Trump's brash and often idiotic fighting was what they needed. The last thing he wants is for Democrats to respond in kind. The shallow petty bickering they are using now is exactly the kind of resistance that emboldens Republicans, which is supported by polling data. xDaunt also has a thing for rules as if rules can't be rigged or just trash. The republican temerity that I bitched about is very different than what Nebu is complaining about. Before Trump, Republicans simply took it on the chin whenever Democrats peddled in slander as they are with Kavanaugh. W would say that it was beneath the dignity of the office to respond. It was the same with Romney and even McCain. And beyond that, Republicans are still terrible at actually using their power. The lack of major legislation over the past couple years is really sad. The current Republican president spent years peddling that the previous president was part of a massive government wide conspiracy to cover up he wasn't actually a US citizen. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of the idea that Republicans don't want slanderous rumors circulating.
How much of the GOP was behind Trump then?
Regardless, that’s not really relevant to my point.
|
|
|
On October 03 2018 09:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2018 08:59 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2018 08:21 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 08:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Yeah, that sounds about right. Is there anything wrong with that? If you were in the opposition and you saw your side just disarm or not fight hard enough, would you be fine with that? I certainly am not. Maybe offer up something practical? Or just be honest like GH and come out and advocate for armed revolution? There aren't many options here. The GOP is in power, so according to the law, they get to call the shots on this stuff. As Obama said, "elections have consequences." It seems like y'all on the left have real problems with losing and living with the results within the bounds of the law. How about what I just offered? Demand an investigation that lasts until the election, and then blame the Republicans when they don't accept that. Don't demand a one week investigation that changes absolutely nothing in terms of politics and allows the Republicans to say "We've accepted all the terms the evil Democrats demanded of us, and somehow they're still opposed to our guy, aren't they terrible". The one week demand shows that they're still attempting to compromise. Republicans don't lose anything by accepting that, it's needlessly conciliatory toward them. That's what's making the Dems look bad right now, they gave up their leverage on just the hope that a one week investigation could unearth enough, which is not likely. xDaunt spent years complaining Republicans didn't fight hard enough and that Trump's brash and often idiotic fighting was what they needed. The last thing he wants is for Democrats to respond in kind. The shallow petty bickering they are using now is exactly the kind of resistance that emboldens Republicans, which is supported by polling data. xDaunt also has a thing for rules as if rules can't be rigged or just trash. The republican temerity that I bitched about is very different than what Nebu is complaining about. Before Trump, Republicans simply took it on the chin whenever Democrats peddled in slander as they are with Kavanaugh. W would say that it was beneath the dignity of the office to respond. It was the same with Romney and even McCain. And beyond that, Republicans are still terrible at actually using their power. The lack of major legislation over the past couple years is really sad. The current Republican president spent years peddling that the previous president was part of a massive government wide conspiracy to cover up he wasn't actually a US citizen. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of the idea that Republicans don't want slanderous rumors circulating. How much of the GOP was behind Trump then? Regardless, that’s not really relevant to my point.
It's not like it stopped being part of his past when he ran for president, or that anyone in the GOP wanted to or even attempted to hold him accountable. So I don't really buy the idea that suddenly it's the worst thing Republicans have seen. It's not even as bad as the slander their own president spread.
|
On October 03 2018 09:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 09:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2018 08:59 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2018 08:21 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 08:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Yeah, that sounds about right. Is there anything wrong with that? If you were in the opposition and you saw your side just disarm or not fight hard enough, would you be fine with that? I certainly am not. Maybe offer up something practical? Or just be honest like GH and come out and advocate for armed revolution? There aren't many options here. The GOP is in power, so according to the law, they get to call the shots on this stuff. As Obama said, "elections have consequences." It seems like y'all on the left have real problems with losing and living with the results within the bounds of the law. How about what I just offered? Demand an investigation that lasts until the election, and then blame the Republicans when they don't accept that. Don't demand a one week investigation that changes absolutely nothing in terms of politics and allows the Republicans to say "We've accepted all the terms the evil Democrats demanded of us, and somehow they're still opposed to our guy, aren't they terrible". The one week demand shows that they're still attempting to compromise. Republicans don't lose anything by accepting that, it's needlessly conciliatory toward them. That's what's making the Dems look bad right now, they gave up their leverage on just the hope that a one week investigation could unearth enough, which is not likely. xDaunt spent years complaining Republicans didn't fight hard enough and that Trump's brash and often idiotic fighting was what they needed. The last thing he wants is for Democrats to respond in kind. The shallow petty bickering they are using now is exactly the kind of resistance that emboldens Republicans, which is supported by polling data. xDaunt also has a thing for rules as if rules can't be rigged or just trash. The republican temerity that I bitched about is very different than what Nebu is complaining about. Before Trump, Republicans simply took it on the chin whenever Democrats peddled in slander as they are with Kavanaugh. W would say that it was beneath the dignity of the office to respond. It was the same with Romney and even McCain. And beyond that, Republicans are still terrible at actually using their power. The lack of major legislation over the past couple years is really sad. The current Republican president spent years peddling that the previous president was part of a massive government wide conspiracy to cover up he wasn't actually a US citizen. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of the idea that Republicans don't want slanderous rumors circulating. How much of the GOP was behind Trump then? Regardless, that’s not really relevant to my point. It's not like it stopped being part of his past when he ran for president, or that anyone in the GOP wanted to or even attempted to hold him accountable. So I don't really buy the idea that suddenly it's the worst thing Republicans have seen. It's not even as bad as the slander their own president spread.
The voters gave Trump a pass, but the establishment GOP politicians certainly didn’t. Why do you think #nevertrump gained as much traction as it did during the campaign?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
